ML20052A865

Design of River Bend Station Containment W/Concrete Annulus Fill.

ML20052A865
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	04/30/1982
From:	STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20052A864	List: ML20052A863 ML20052A865
References
12210-S(C)-1, 2RH-C2-12210-4, NUDOCS 8204290284
Download: ML20052A865 (51)

Text

- __- _.

I I

! DESIGN OF THE RIVER I BEND STATION CONTAINMENT l WITH CONCRETE ANNULUS FILL I

I I

GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY I Beaumont, Texas I

l Docket Nos.50-458 and 50-459 I

I I

I -

I I

STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Cherry Hill Operations Center g Cherry Hill, New Jersey 6 2 0 4 2 9 b 11M I

I 12210-S(C)-1 I

I DESIGN OF THE RIVER BEND STATION CONTAINMENT WITH CONCRETE ANNULUS FILL I Prepared for Gulf States Utilities Company I Beaumont, Texas April 1982 I

I I

I I

I I

I Copyright 1982 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION CHERRY HILL, NEW JERSEY 08034 I 2RH/C2/12210/4

I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE CONTAINMENT 1 3.0 DESIGN OF THE CONCRETE ANNULUS FILL 1 3.1 Design Parameters 1

~

3.1.1 Governing Codes 1 3.1.2 Loads and Loading Combinations 2 3.2 Methods of Analysis 2 3.3 Results of the Analysis 2 3.4 Design Details and Procedures 3 I 3.4.1 Axial Forces and Moments 3 3.4.2 Shears 3 3.4.2.1 Radial Shear 3 3.4.2.2 Tangential Shear 3 3.4.2.3 Interface Shear Stress 3 3.4.3 Transfer of Stresses to Basemat 4 3.5 Design Features Using Drillco Maxi-Bolts 4 3.5.1 Description of the Maxi-Bolt 4 1

3.5.2 Description of Usage 5 3.5.3 Installation Procedure 5 3.5.4 Results of Test Programs 5 3.5.4.1 Tests at River Bend Station 5 3.5.4.2 Tests at Other Locations 6 I

I 2RH/C2/12210/4 i I

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) 3.5.5 Design Capacity of Maxi-Bolts 6 3.5.5.1 Evaluation of IE Bulletin 79-02 6 3.5.5.2 Capacity of Maxi-Bolts 7 3.5.e v.ci,1 cati.n ., in.ta11.e Ma.1-e.1,. e g

4.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 8

5.0 REFERENCES

9 .

APPENDIX -

SUMMARY

OF THE TESTS ON MAXI-BOLTS ATTACHMENT - ASME CODE CASE N-258 I

I I

I I

I I

l 1

E I

I 2RH/C2/12210/4 ii I

~

I LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 1 River Bend Station Mark III Containment 2 Details of the Containment in the Suppression Pool 3 Critical Load Combinations 4 Shell Model 5 Typical Thermal Gradient ,

6 Moments and Shears for Load Combination 13.1 7 Moments and Shears for Load Combination 13.2 8 Interface Shear Stress, Load Combination 13.1 I 9 Interface Shear Stress, Load Combination 13.2 10 Interface Shear Stress, Load Combination 8.2 11 Tangential Shear Forces in the Suppression Pool Region (SSE) 12 Average Tangential Shear Stress (PSI) in the Suppression Pool Region 13 Design Details of the Concrete Fill 14 Details of Maxi-Bolts in the Concrete Fill 15 Shield Building Details 16 Containment - Mat Junction Details 17 Interface Shear Stress - Comparison of the Capacity and Requirements 18 Details of Maxi-Bolt l 19 Load Deflection Data for Maxi-Bolt Tests at River Bend Station 1

I I 2RH/C2/12210/4 iii

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I The River Bend Station Containment is a free-standing steel cylindrical shell, 1 1/2 inches thick, with a torispherical dome (Figure 1). There are presently 4 circumferential and 108 vertical T-sections welded on the outside of the steel shell to add stiffness in the lower 20 ft. During I 1981, it was calculated that dynamic responses of the Containment due to hydrodynamic loadings resulting from Safety Relief Valve (SRV) discharge and from Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) events in the suppression pool require significant reductions to permit economical qualification of pip-ing systems and equipment supported off of the Containment. Although the Containment structure is qualified under the applied loads, it has been decided that the Containment be modified to reduce dynamic acceleration of piping systems by placing concrete in the 5-ft annulus space in the ,

lower 25-ft region between the Containment and the outside Shield Build-ing. This report describes these modifications and provides the planned design details for this concrete annulus fill.

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE CONTAINMENT Details of the Containment structure in the suppression pool area are shown in Figure 2 (reference Section 3.8.2 of the River Bend Station RBS-FSAR). The modification will consist of adding reinforced concrete I in the annulus between the Containment vessel and the Shield Building to a height of 25 ft above the top of the basemat, as shown in Figure 2.

3.0 DESIGN OF THE CONCRETE ANNULUS FILL 3.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS j

I The approach used in the design of the modification is that the Contain-ment vessel, the fill concrete, and the Shield Building wall will act compositely. This leads to the greatest structural stiffness and pro-(I duces the greatest reduction in dynamic responses of the Containment vessel due to the hydrodynamic loads.

3.1.1 Governing Codes The basis for the design modification is ASME Code Case N- 258 (Reference 5.3 and the Attachment to this report), which addresses this type of modification. The Containment vessel, although acting com-positely with the concrete, must still meet the allowable stress values of ASME,Section III, Division 1. The concrete portion must meet the requirements of ASME,Section III, Division 2 (Reference 5.2).

l i

I Design for the transfer of interface stresses across the joint between the existing Shield Building wall and the fill concrete is based on the g use of Chapter 17 of ACI 318-77 (Reference 5.4). This procedure is used W because it provides criteria for composite concrete design not specified by Reference 5.2.

I l I 2RH/C2/12210/4 1

I 3.1.2 Loads and Loading Combinations The Containment structure is subjected to a variety of loads, including I dead loads, live loads, hydrostatic pressure from the suppression pool, design pressure, accident or operating temperatures, earthquake loads, and hydrodynamic loads. The hydrodynamic loads are dynamic loads result-ing from a blowdown into the pool due to a Safety Relief Valve (SRV) dis-charge and/or Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) events. For design of the concrete fill, these loads are combined as specified by ASME,Section III, Division 2 for concrete containments. These combinations are identical to those used for the drywell wall and are listed in Section 3.8.3 of the RBS-FSAR. The three most critical combinations are I shown in Figure 3.

l

~

3.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS I The Containment structure is analyzed as an axisymmetric shell using a finite element method. The lower concrete-fill portion is given the properties of a composite section, consisting of the stiffened steel shell, the fill concrete, and the Shield Building. Above the concrete I fill, individual shells representing the Containment vessel and Shield Building are used (see Figure 4).

The effect of the mat is accounted for by applying discontinuity shear

!I and moments at the bottom of the finite element model. These boundary

[ effects are calculated by considering the interaction of the Containment and the basemat and enforcing conditions of equilibrium and compatibility between them.

For the dynamic analysis of the finite element model under axisymmetric loads, properties of the concrete elements are considered as orthotropic to account for the amount of cracking of the concrete in the vertical and circumferential directions. The properties therefore are dependent upon the state of stress in the structure.

For the dynamic analysis of the finite element model under asymmetric loads only, uncracked sections are considered in the analysis, and crack-I ing is accounted for in the design of individual sections. For the analysis of loads involving a combination of axisymmetric and asymmetric loads, the procedure described above for axisymmetric loads is utilized.

l The mechanical loads, such as dead load or pressure, are applied directly l to the shell. Thermal loads are also considered. In the lower portion, where the steel heats up much more than the concrete, an equivalent tem-perature increase that produces the same effect on the composite section I is used. An equivalent linear gradient is used which produces the same thermal moment in the cracked composite section as the actual gradient. A typical gradient for one design condition is shown in Figure 5.

3.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS The results of the analysis of the finite element model under the applied I loads consist of in plane forces and out- of plane shears and moments.

Forces and moments in the vertical direction are shown in Figures 6 and 7 5

2RH/C2/12210/4 2 I

1

l I for several loading combinations. Shear stress values for three critical load combinations are shown in Figures 8 to 10. Figure 11 shows the re-I sults of tangential shear forces in the concrete fill area for the worst loading combination, while Figure 12 shows average tangential shear stresses in the steel Containment and the concrete in the suppression pool.

3.4 DESIGN DETAILS AND PROCEDURES Design details are as shown in Figure 13.

3.4.1 Axial Forces and Moments Reinforcing steel is provided in the vertical and circumferential direc- _

tions to resist the in-plane axial forces and out-of plane bending moments in the fill. The stresses in the reinforcing and concrete are limited by ASME,Section III, Division 2 (Reference 5.2). It should be noted that the properties of the composite section are dependent on the amount of reinforcing in the concrete fill. Therefore, several itera-tions of calculations were performed before arriving at the final design.

3.4.2 Shears 3.4.2.1 Radial Shear Cut-of-plane radial shear stresses are resisted by the concrete in com-bination with stirrups in the fill concrete as shown in Figure 13. For conservatism, only the concrete in the fill area is assumed to resist the shear carried by the entire composite section and stirrups are sized ac-cordingly.

3.4.2.2 Tangential Shear

!I Tangential shear forces shown in Figure 11 are resisted by the composite section made up of the steel Containment vessel, the concrete fill, and the Shield Building. It can be seen that the average tangential shear stress (Figure 12) in the concrete is less than the allowable shear I stress in concrete, Vc, of 60 psi for abnormal / extreme environmental con-dition (Reference 1); therefore, no shear reinforcement is requir d.

3.4.2.3 Interface Shear Stress As discussed in Section 3.1.1, design of the joint between the Shield Building and the concrete fill to transfer interface shear stresses given in Figures 8, 9, and 10 is based on Chapter 17 of the ACI 318-77 Code (Reference 5.4).

I The surface of the Shield Building is roughened in accordance with the ACI Code provisions, and 3/4-in diameter Maxi-Bolts are provided at an average spacing of 23 inches in the circumferential direction and 24-in spacing in the vertical direction (total number: 2, 795) (Figure 14) to I satisfy the minimum amount of steel required by the ACI 318-77 Code (Section 17.5.4.3). The allowable shear capacity of the roughened sur-I 2RH/C2/12210/4 3 I

face with minimum ties (Equation 11-14 of the ACI 318-77 Code) is 298 psi, which is well above the peak shear stress of 240 psi.

Based on the average shear stress of 80 psi, there is a factor of safety of approximately 3.7, as shown in Figure 17.

I Based on the amount of the steel, Av, provided by the Maxi-Bolts, the steel yield stress required is 81.9 ksi using Equation 11- 14 of the ACI 318-77 Code. The minimum yield stress of the material of the Maxi-Bolts is 105 ksi, which is more than the 81.9 ksi required. Details of the Maxi-Bolts, including the design capacity and the tests performed to support the adequacy of the performance and the function of these bolts to meet the design requirements, are provided in Section 3.5.

~

It is to be noted that the Maxi- Bolts described in Section 3.5, with their bearing-type engagement on the concrete provide a positive an-chorage system to tie the Shield Building and the concrete fill.

3.4.3 Transfer of Stresses to Basemat The forces in the composite shell are transferred to the mat in the fol-lowing manner. Vertical stresses and tangential shear stresses are transferred by the extension of Shield Building vertical reinforcing into the basemat (Figure 15) and an embedment plate at the base of the Con-tainment vessel that is anchored into the basemat (Figure 16). Radial t shear stresses are transferred through a shear key cut in the mat and l - shear lugs welded to the bottom of the steel Containment embedment plate.

1 The tangential shear stress of approximately 40 psi between the concrete i fill and the basemat is transferred through the roughened surface between the concrete fill and the mat concrete (Figure 13).

3.5 DESIGN FEATURES USING DRILLCO MAXI-BOLTS 3.5.1 Description of the Maxi-Bolt The Drillco Maxi-Bolt is a ductile bearing-type anchor and has been introduced recently in the nuclear industry.

l The Maxi-Bolt derives its name from the basic concept of developing maxi-mum bolt capacity and maximum ductility. The Maxi-Bolt is a bearing anchor bolt designed specifically to comply with the requirements of l Section B.7.1 of Appendix B, Steel Embedments, of ACI 349-76 (Reference 5.5). The Maxi-Bolt is made of ASTM A193 (Grade B) steel material (fult=125 ksi). Tests have been conducted to verify that the Maxi-Bolt will consistently develop the minimum specified tensile stress of the bolt and develop full ductility of the bolt to provide a favorable I plastic stretch over the length of the bolt. Figure 18 explains the con-figuration and the components of Maxi-Bolts.

The Maxi-Bolt is installed in a predrilled hole with a conical counter-I bore at a predetermined depth so that the tapered nut at the end of the bolt bears against this counterbored surface. The conical hole and the nut are designed to transfer the bolt tension load into direct bearing 2RH/C2/12210/4 4 l

1 l

l I

l stress between the conical nut and the expansion sleeve and between the expansion sleeve and conical hole concrete surface. This design does not depend upon the lateral expansion of a mechanism onto a concrete surface I parallel to the direction of the bolt tension load and thus differs significantly from other wedge and sleeve type drilled-in expansion anchors, which depend on friction between concrete and the bolt to trans-l mit the load. By utilizing the sloped concrete surface of the Maxi-Bolt l

design, the bearing area (contact surface) for the Maxi-Bolt can be dup-licated for each installed anchor and will therefore produce consistent test load characteristics, performance, and capacity for any given con-crete strength.

3.5.2 Description of Usage I The Maxi-Bolts will be used to tie the annulus fill concrete to the Shield Building to provide a fully composite section as described in Section 3.4.

3.5.3 Installation Procedure Installation of this anchor is achieved by first drilling a primary hole with a drill that has very close dimensional tolerance. The bottom of this hole is undercut into a conical shape by use of a special expanding I drill bit. After the drilling is completed, holes are cleaned of con-crete cuttings, dust, and foreign material. The Maxi-Bolt is then in-serted into the hole. The bolt is then pretensioned to 50 percent of the yield strength load. At this time, the wedge of the bolt has been fully expanded into the precut conical shape. Final tensioning is done to 81 percent of the yield strength of the bolt material by either hydraulic tensioning or torquing the hexagonal nut. The installation is complete at this point.

The installation process described above expands the bottom of sleeve B I (Figure 18) and seats the Maxi-Bolt on the predrilled conical concrete shape of the hole bottom. The bolt load is transferred through the sleeve by bearing against the concrete. The depth of the primary hole is designed to develop a cone in concrete that will develop pullout capacity t

I at least equal to the ultimate bolt tensile capacity. This ensures' that the bolt will perform in a completely ductile manner.

3.5.4 Results of Test Programs q,

1 l

3.5.4.1 Tests at River Bend Station To verify the performance and capacity of the Maxi-Bolts for use at River Bend Station, the following test program has been initiated:

I 1. In January 1982, 3/4-inch diameter anchor bolts were tested at the River Bend Site. During this testing, the bolts were installed as described in Section 3.5.3, but prior to tension testing, the pretension force was removed. This duplicated the worst condition that could be expected during plant life. The results exhibited an excellent correlation between deflection and applied tension. The load deflection curve is enclosed in 2RH/C2/12210/4 5

l I Figure 19. In all cases, the mode of failure was a ductile failure of bolts.

2. Additional tests for other diameters of Maxi-Bolts, similar to the ones described above, are scheduled for mid-May 1982.

3.5.4.2 Tests at Other tions Extensive tests have been performed on Drillco Maxi-Bolts at other loca- )

tions. A summary of the results of static and dynamic tests (for tension

' I and shear loads) performed at the University of Tennessee, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, and Rockport Generating Station is enclosed (the Appendix of this report). Results of (

{

static and dynamic tests indicate that failure occurred in the bolts at loads exceeding the specified ultimate load-carrying capacity of the

']<

bolt. Not a single Maxi-Bolt failed prematurely due to slippage or due l I to any sort of malfunction of the anchorage mechanism. It was concluded that the anchorage mechanisms of the Maxi-Bolts tested were adequate to develop the full strength of the bolt in tension or in shear and that the 1

l

, a failure mode is a ductile one. Additional static and dynamic tests per-g formed at the University of Tennessee (Reference 5.6) on various types of anchors, including the Maxi- Bolts, in cracked concrete indicated clearly that the Maxi-Bolts performed exceptionally well under the most rigorous test couditions.

3.5.5 Design Capacity of Maxi-Bolts 3.5.5.1 Evaluation of IE Bulletin 79-02 NRC Bulletin IE 79-02, Revision 2, was issued in November 1979 and has imposed constraints on the use of drilled-in wedge and sleeve type ex- ,

pansion anchor bolts so that if they are used, a safety factor of 4 must be provided. Until 1979, the expansion-type anchors were the only I drilled- in anchor bolts available for use in the power plant con-struction.

Drillco's Maxi-Bolt anchor is, in contrast to the expansion-type designs, I a bearing-type anchor and is designed using provisions of Appendix B, j l Steel Embedments, of ACI 349-76. Key design features of the design and performance are outlined as follows:

1 1. Design Practice Loads for Drillco anchors are calculated using the procedure outlined in Appendix B of ACI 349-76. Proper reduction, if applicable, in allowable stresses of anchor bolts for cyclic j

loading is made to avoid fatigue failures in the bolt material.

1 An extensive amount of testing for static and dynamic loads has been done (Appendix ), and it has been established that the failure of the Maxi-Bolt material takes place at or above the Maxi-Bolt's specified ultimate capacity and that it does not pull out at failure, which assures that the mode of failure is l

2RH/C2/12210/4 6

ductile. Therefore, the anchor can be designed in accordance with the requirements of ACI 349-76.

2. Installation Installation of these bolts will be in accordance with pro-cedures as described above. Inspection criteria aave been developed by the Engineers for monitoring the installation under the River Bend Station QA program.

3. Material The material used for Drillco anchors is ASTM A193, Grade B, which has a minimum yield stress of 105 ksi and a minimum ulti- .

mate strength of 125 ksi. The bolts will be procured in accor-dance with a QA program that meets the intent of 10CFR50, Appendix B.

4. Slippage The means by which this bolt transfers loads to concrete is by bearing against the concrete. All tests conducted to date have shown no bolt failure due to slippage during either static or cyclic loading.

In view of the above, the Maxi-Bolts are not subject to the requirements of the IE 79-02 Bulletin, but are correctly governed by the requirements of Appendix B of ACI 349-76.

3.5.5.2 Capacity of Maxi-Bolts The design pullout capacity of Maxi-Bolts is calculated in accordance with Appendix B, Steel Embedments, of ACI 349-76, as shown as follows:

Pure tension P in kips = 0.81 (lesser of fy or 0.8 fult) x Ab t

where fy = minimum yield stress of bolt, 105 ksi fult = minimum ultimate stress of bolt, 125 ksi 2

Ab = area of bolt, in Bolt capacity and other data are listed in Table 1.

2RH/C2/12210/4 7

l l

TABLE 1 PULLOUT CAPACITY OF MAXI-BOLTS I Diameter of Area of ACI 349-76 Bolt Bolt Appendix B Ultimate Bolt (inches) (sq inches) (capacity in kips) (capacity in kips) 1/2 0.142 11.5 17.8 5/8 0.226 18.3 28.3 3/4 0.334 27.0 41.8 3.5.6 Verification of Installed Maxi-Bolts To ensure that the variability of concrete in the zone of the shear cone will not adversely affect the capacity of these bolts, we have taken the following steps:

1. The Maxi-Bolt is subjected to a stress of 0.81 fy during the installation, thereby assuring the adequate strength of the concrete in the undercut area and verifying that the Maxi-Bolt will not pull out of the concrete.

2. The River Bend Project adheres to stringent quality control measures and techniques in mixing, placing, and curing of con-crete.

3. The design capacity of the theoretical shear cone is based on )

capacity reduction factors in accordance with ACI 349-76, which take into account the possibility of variation in the strength of concrete.

4. Since the theoretical shear cone covers a large area of con-crete around the bolt, the variability of concrete strength averages out over the total area of the shear cone and minor variations are not significant.

5. To demonstrate that the adequate concrete shear cone capacity l i exists, a statistical sample of a minimum of 125 (Refer-i ence 5.7) bolts in installed condition will be randomly selected and tensioned to 0.81 fy, with supports on con-crete surface outside the theoretical shear cone area.

I Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation believes that the above measures will adequately demonstrate that the variability of concrete in the shear cone area will not adversely affect the capacity of the Maxi-Bolts and will ensure that the Maxi-Bolts will function as designed.

4.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS As explained in detail in Sections 1.0 through 3.0, the design of the concrete fill and the method of tying the existing Shield Building with 2RH/C2/12210/4 8 l

1 l

l l

l Maxi-Bolts are conservative and provide adequate assurance that the structure will perform satisfactorily as designed, meeting the safety l requirements of the Containment design. '

5.0 REFERENCES

Review Plan, Concrete Containment, l 5.1 Standard Section 3.8.I. l Revision 1, dated July 1981, issued by the United States Nuclear )

Regulatory Commission.

5.2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2, Code j for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containment, July 1, 1980, American j l

Society of Mechanical Engineers.

5.3 ASME Code Case N-258 (Attachment to this Report).

5.4 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77),

American Concrete Institute, 1977.

5.5 Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures, American Cencrete Institute (ACI) Standard 349-76, 1976.

5.6 Expansion Anchor Performance in Cracked Concrete, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, November - December 1981, pages 471 through 479.

I 5.7 Sampling Procedure and Tables for Inspection by Attributes, Military Standard, MIL-STD-105D, April 1963, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S.A.

l I

2RH/C2/12210/4 9

i .

I 1

I I

I I ,

'l l l

\

'5HIELD BLDG I a

/ STEEL I CONTMT

~

O ' ~

_. -1 l

, I t -

I m

, _)

3, n

Il

' . ,9,

-.s n

/

I

~

4 g

[

f h, DRYWELL I

i - a

,s f u-- _

q - __

1 l /f  :, .

p/

.p.-

L- CONCRETE

4_

Welt WALL

. 1 I -

g I

I I 6 5'-0" R AD SHIELD BLDO WALL 60'-0" R AD TOP OF CONCRETE 95'-0"

{

,p lf PL 1%x24

,o. no v NOR.MAL W.L l.r  ; .

w ll lE m  %" DI A.

/ --

p STEEL CONTAINMENT MAXI-BOLTS de . .+c e' t*te ,

.ogi 9 ' .' '

E . *A. ,, -

85'-0"

.452!' ..

7 y PL 1%x18

-- # , (108) l --

l 8 0'- 0" CONCRETE --

FILL lI -_ ', ,

75' 6"

,E -

l 3 --

-- , TOP OF MAT EL 7 0'-0" O ,*o E -

l FIG. 2 DETAILS OF THE CONTAINMENT IN SUPPRESSION POOL I

i i

i 4

REFERENCE:

FSAR SECTION 3.8.3.3.1 l

l 13.1 D + L+ P a i + Tai +SS E+ LO C A+S RV2+ Ra+ R m+ Rj+ R r 13.2 D + L+ P a2+Ta2+S S E+ LO C A+ S RV3+ R a + R m+ Rj + R r 8.2 D+L+1.5 Pa2+Ta2+1.5 LOCA+1.25 SRV3+Ra

(*.ew FIG.3 CRITICAL LOAD COMBINATIONS

I I

I I

.I I .

! R = 6 0. '

lI R=66.25' l l l SHIELD BLDG =

CONTAINMENT =

! VESSEL I

5' g TOP OF FILL ,_

CONCRETE R=63.75'

'g

.I TOP OF EL 70' M

l MAT M DISCONTINUITY FORCES I

FIG.4 SHELL MODEL I

I I ~

I T I /

I s 3 P 80 - q tu 160-E l p 140-i l

l g 120-y g

100- ,

y

] 80- /

I H 60 -

I I l I I I I I I I I 90 8070605040302010 0 g DISTANCE FROM INSIDE FACE (IN)

I

""^""""^'""^"'"*'

I I

.I I

I I (VERT SSE-)

-SRV +SRV -SRV +SRV -SRV +SRV EL 95' - ss 100 ,g2 24s s.3 ' 21.7 l

87 '" ' 4'1 18 0 u , 28.s g EL 87' - oo ,

~

58 1 86 ,48s 8.5 , , , 18.s EL 83' - , , , , ,

I I 116 277 I EL 75'-

50

.449 208

-so -1s 3,07 1-- 137 , -100j ,-117 -60 EL 70, j I

,- -, i- , ,-

-100 0 100 -400 0 400 -200 -100 0 100 NS (k/et) MS (w-rt/et) QScuftt)

I 0

-SRV +SRV -SRV +SRV -SRV +SRY EL 95'- 333 o o.3,0 23, 8s 9.3 m 24.7 I

EL 87' - -172, ,, ,-12s -s \ , ,96 13.6 ,

, 23.2 I EL 83'- -180 < ,o -1as aa- ,

,133 -7.9 1

, 2.1 l

I

"" -324 -107.2 lE EL 75'- " -142

-152

-83.2 '

l 5 l

-233 -131 -996 -184.s -129.3

-688

)g I

EL 70'- ;i 4

-200 -100 i

0 I ;i - i-

-1200 -800 -400 i

0 400 i ;r

-200 -100 i

0 i

s= Vertical Force S (k/ft) , MS(x_refet) QS (ufet)

MsoRadial Bending Movement l s= Radial Shear Force .m

! FIC. 6 MOMENTS & SHEARS FOR LOAD COMBINATIONS 13.1 I

{

l

\

I I I EL 95' - o 58 1'72 o 15.9 l 1

I EL 87' - ' 55 <

,239 o 20.6 _

"8 " 296 g EL 83' - , 7.o I EL 75' - " 48 148 30 9 EL 70' -  ; " 43 -238)r i;

-107.7

, i i i-

-100 o 100 -400 0 400 -100 0 100 l Ns(k/tt)

O Ms (k-ttift) Os tk/tt)

-2ss o 17.3 EL 95' - -152 7

-124 o EL 87' - -173, ,

, 7.2

-20.4 EL 83' - -184 < > -144 '

I

-883 -117 1 g EL 75' - -204m l -215 -1439 -191 7 EL 70'

- - ~

i i i i i 'r i J

-200 -100 0 -1200 -800 -400 o -200 -100 0 100

-1600 i Ns (k/tt) Ms (k-et/st) Os (k/tt)  !

l I Ns= Vertical Force 180 l

'g m ..

g Ms= Radial Bending Movement FIG. 7 MOMENTS & SIIEARS FOR LOAD QsoRadial Shear Force COMBINATION 13.2 I

I I .

I 95' i 2s- 7 i

32  !

l 90' -

2e I

I l 27 i

i i AVERAGE SHEAR g 86' -

,24

! STRESS 2 , = 80.4 ps,i l $

4 18 l I

$ 82' -

3a I in l

[;j s2 i

! 78' -

84 l l 12o I

I 74' -

I  !

i 4..

1 l

I 70' O 100 200 240

! SHEAR STRESS (psi)

I r1c. a tsreavict sutia statss torn coxst"Artons t3-I I

I I

I I

95 -q (18) g I l l

1 I I I

I 87  :

<>(23)l I

@ QAVERAGE SHEAR STRESS l 2 a3 l

(23)i,

= 69.0 psi O

= <

I P I

1 J l W I I 75 -

l (130)

I l l

(213)

I . . . . .

.._i....._.._ ,

100 200 300 I SHEAR STRESS (psi)

I FIG. 9 INTERFACE SilEAR STRESS LOAD COMBINATIONS 13.2 I

I I

I I

I l

I lI 95 - '

'(19g I I I I I

I l g ~(15l

/ AVERAGE SHEAR STRESS I -

2 o 83 1 (5) g i = 48.0 psi I g uJ I

l l

l d I

i 75 -

(90) 1 I  !

I (165),

i ,

l 100 200 300 l S!iEAR STRESS (psi)

I ric to INTERFACE SHEAR STRESS LOAD COMBINATIONS 8.2 I

I I

I l

l E L.10 4 ' - i t. (,

47.7 t z w

i 5

, ,2 l

EL.98' a d f -

11.7 Y d E

BL.95' E 47.7 63.9 0 - 12.1 _

l l

EL.90' lI 67.1 l b L l EL.85' ] 68.6

)

8 a

O O I I EL.80'

• a g

e 67.3 i v'

2 m

I 2

BL.75 4 64.4 F

2 O

O eL.70' A61 .0 Nge (KIP /g FIC. I1 TANGENTIAL SHEAR FORCES IN THE SUPPRESSION POOL REGION (SSE) l l _ - -

I I

I et.es' 670 47 720 E L. 90'

/

l41

\ 1280

. 43 1530

~

b 42 1390 EL 85' O r 42 $ 1380 I  : ig

• 42 1340 E L. SO' j j

• V 1270 42 m) J d 42 & 'l200 et. 7 5' 5 1060 I o 43 45

/830

/

I BL.TO'

\ 46

\ ] 650 I

I I

I FIG.12 AVERAGE TANGENTIAL SHEAR STRESS (PSI) IN THE SUPPRESSION POOL REGION I

I

-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ . 1

I ~& ,,

I i

SHIELD BLDG WALL -

I (EC 36A TO D) c

1. 1i

.#18 : r

1. 8rm CAP &PL N

( 95' O

,ii,,u'

.v,=

,, #8 @ 12" 1

' .I; e *-

~ 4~

A =

. . d

/ ",4 y l ,- ,

i ROUGHEN % '

I SURFACE  % -

l 5 e e-. '; .~. I

, 3 EL 90' 6" n

e #1g -

• ^*

-L

• EL 90'-0" 3

@ 12"

[

- #8 o (TYP)

I x.

_e .

a a e u '

EL 85' 0" h

h 216 -

. a U fl',.' -

s.

I EL 80' 0"

% DlA a  :

MAXI BOLTS

^

SPACED AT 24" VERTICALLY. ,

2 22.8" HORIZONTAL .,' , .

(2795) 1" '

-22 +- b'=

EL 75' 6" L" ' CL' , ^ '- '

'(TYP) - 7

• =

l' #8 @ 6" 3 '.

l .

u

• 8 e--

EL 70'-0" I

l- u u ___ I J

FIELD CUT MEY (TYP)-

(EC 368A J 7) i

! FIG. 13 DESIGN DETAILS OF THE CONCRETE FILL i me . S

M M M M M M l

SHIELD WALL (65'-0" RAD) >

4 (ROUGHEN SURFACE PER SPEC 210.370)

$ 1" (MIN) 3_"

1.. 9 4(uiN) 12" (MIN)

+3 2

• 4  :

M C

m t

'b - " . . >

g s

B .. .

r . . . . ,

g *-

a . .

, 1 Ei . "

- N a  % '*"

m . -

4:::::::::::: :::::ili:::::::::::::

G - . .Yr. -

4 d .

4 4 . i g ,. .-

. - - - NUT TO BE EPOXY GLUED n ,

PRIOR TO INSTALLATION n

e - 4 - . - .

(

.- . . OF REBAR N . . .

M i a 3"c p i DRILLCO MAXI BOLT INSTALLATION PROCEDURE PER SPEC 210.372 STD WASHER

umm tt 14 ,

• I4 =

g p 3,. g g.

-i e

_ ____. ..p___._. A

, . , c6

~2-9 5, - 0 o 6_'fTYP)

- - ~2 -

9 SPLICE STAGGERED SPLICES C;

p; i m

o._ eeao o e --

e e e a e e a a a ej ,

x y

• J '

N c' ~ \ , n, c: U'o xj s . (.g . .

n '-

y a e e o a a e n -

.._ gI

. *> _ i ..

g, ,

a . 1

.' \

i a i e .

_l-8 3 SP G l' - 8 5-0 g

. l-8 gm E" --

~

Etym"\

E m ri x 2 oT ud e' Tkmmr (D G ME ump >  ! OMx wn m -< x o - m r -< x o 50 l' m o tn 3 O I m tp 5

_, e --i n! m DOpr = bo pr CD m cp o<x O ;O

^ or mmm y. mm m

'g <

• 8 S w 2 hmmo ._ o

1. 11 @ (,"

• 11612" _

cmp P

w m o ,;' >o r .

nH@ C i m

m

I I

I 7

/

/

/

I PLl i g

a /-

p 6 O'-0" R AD. _ (_ l'- 6" R E F .

/

l Y N . ----- TY P t c A L.

g \ \/ s (2 T l t. A L STI F F69ERS N(

I N

\ n

.i n a a ii N PL l' x 4 x 6 LG.

h l PL If x4 x8 k LG (b } EL.70-Og

' 3n I Y////X'///////////j%%N'4NNN1 l l 's.

$ i i s li l.l S l,j E jl -PL lh,,C S I!l lll ll l l l -

j  ; -

• is Rew.

eos

7 , I, , i .,  :

I'05 I' 0 8 -

{40 0) 3 It i 59'-2hRAD._ si- 10 hll RAD.

I FIG. 16 CONTAINMENT MAT JUNCTION DETAIL I

I I

m m m m e e e e e e e e e e e e e m e i l

i l

25 ,

i 24 = I I ,

22 = l- 80.4 psi 298 psi  :

I I RESISTANCE CAPACITY l 20 -  ! REQUIRED PROVIDED i

e i

P I 18 = s l 0 i

! 5 16 =

w l 4 a

• j4 a REGION I f

m i

' l Vu $ 68 psi , NO TIES REQUIRED I 12 - I ROUGHENED SURFACE ONLY s I

! 5 10 -  !

! O l m h

1. 8= REGION ll

! I

- ._ s 68 < Vu < 298 I 6- E i ROUGHENED SURFACE

$ E e j PLUS MIN. TIES x 4 - o-

• g s

2- l 0 '

O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 SHEAR STRESS (psi)

LOAD COMBINATION 13.1 FIG. 17 INTERFACE SilEAR STRESS - COMPARISON OF Tile CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS

H I

A L; I i ,

s f

C k

f.A

! l

.c 1 I

- i o Gg l l

~

l .

s -i l

i d 1 3 g B, j ,

s l ' 5

? l 4

l 9

\

I

\

i

\

3 l

J \u V T . .

\ A I TYPICAL DRILLCO !!AXI-BOLTS A: Conical Nut- ASIM A193 Gr. B7 B: Expansion Sleeve- ASU! A513 Type 5 C: Washer- ASE! A325 Hard Round Washer D: Heavy Hex. Nut- ASD! A194 Gr. 2H E: Threaded Stud Bolt- ASD! A193 Gr. 37 G: Filler Sleeve- ASD! A513. Type 5 H: Hex or Square Head for non standard length anchor, indicating length code FIG. 18 DETAILS OF MAXI-BOLT I

o I

COMPARl5dH OF TitEOKET14AL VEKeAF2 Actual PEFLECTioHS, 3 Itt. & 981:.L40 14Axl- Bot.T (L1HevtR$lTY OF TENHE%Et TEST & ElvtK set 49 TatT) 46 - - - ' - - - -- - - - - -

(44 7A .Shj a~~~_.

'O - - ~ - -

(54 96,102]g ~[E " ~~ " ,

[s es,.sw] 3 3

.-(99 07,.046) -

" IO FY

{ ,

t n <n.oes); ,-

A

=*

/ lluRVE 1: LDAP AHP PEFLt4IIOD4 PATA eda v

f

• g UNevEEteTT OP YtHMEMEE TChib. AMsHOA EMDLPWCHT PEfiH 915 884. Fif8Ktust y . . _ _ . .= . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._. _. _

g / M*A, Py MTb" BT EPWlH t. DufLDETTE, PEPT OP 4evia.

E 1 (26.4,463) tH4.NEERIH4,Te4E uust OP 7tuwEhtE,

[3164, .cS1] ALLLPai l961 [LOAP, PE FLE4T60H]

O 1. gugvt 2 : THL0Atis4AL ELOHanAf t0H OF 60tT n ._ _ _ / .

_cust_yg _ 3__ _ ._ _ . _ .

8 i

(L DAP, PE FL E41IOH) 2.40RVE 3 ; LOAP AMP PEPLt4Tsoe4 PA1A POR D2 27,.02s.] TESTS cOHPusitP DY 6 TOME & W16bitK

-~ f N(2s, org) EHr.INEERsute MRPORATION AT RivtR ptHP bTATioH, uhs 7 I CH FESRMART 5 4(,,1982 l ' (81 41 021) AHCHOR EMt4PMtHT PEFIH or 10 6 sw.

l * ( L OAP, Pt FL E LTaOH) .

ELI)sEATl0N LL*4filti 484451** M L-

,s _-._t "-*'*1 MC t'RG Tay 5lcu j -k[h92, oss] - - . .

l \(s4,.o,g) l -[m , 0. }

/

,o '..f", = >

_. f tan,ooel

\ ( 7, . oso) s , . im. ml , .- __ _ _

'(4sI,.005) tam..oo4]

0 Jt, ao .e5 20 ls 1,0 NS .40 PEPLELTeou (IH4HES)

FIG. 19 LOAD DEFLECTION DATA FOR MAXI-BOLT TESTS AT RIVER BEND STATION j

.,,___a _ a . -_ - =,.-- - _ - __-.,. -_.--- 2. -_ _ . ..-.___ _a, _ _- _ .._ a .._._

e l

I 1

l 1

t i ,

APPENDIX .

SUMMARY

OF THE l

, TESTS ON MAXI-BOLTS i E

1 l

l l

I ,

j I

O 3

I _ .

APPENDIX I

DRILLCO DEVICES LIMITED I 10-05 357H AVENUE LoNG ISLAND CITY, NEW YORK 11106 TEL: (212) 726 9800 (212) 361 2211 I l

SUMMARY

OF TESTING The following pages present in tabular form the most I pertinent information relative to documented testing performed on the Drillco Maxi-Bolt. Original test g reports upon which this summarization is based are 3 available upon request from Drillco Devices, Ltd.

In addition to the test results presented, other test-ing has been completed for which documentation is not available at this time. This testing includes site demonstrations at the Catawba, Riverbend, and Satsop I Nuclear Stations. Static tension tests of the 1 inch 3 Maxi-Bolt have also been performed at the University of Tennessee by TVA. Results of these tests were con-sistent with the material recorded here.

I I

I

, I I

I ,

I E

"T7;,v a. hf.l-l~M*[~i 1/2" Maxi-Bolt Static Tension 6 P- . Tl/O

\ (

I. Deflection",,

0 .50 Fy* '-

Deflection"

@ .81 Fy*

Peak Load Peak Stress Failure Mode Location (KIPS) (KSI)

.007 .050 19.2 135.2 Stud TVA

.004 .065 20.5 144.4 Stud TVA /

.005 .022 20.1 141.5 Stud TVA I

.012 .050 20.1 141.5 ConcreteI II TVA Avarage .007 .047 20.0 140.7

• • UT

.032 .039 16.7 117.6 -

.012 .029 20.9 147.2 Stud UT

, .014 .030 20.2 142.3 Stud UT

.016 .035 20.9 147.2 Stud UT v

.015 .035 20.9 147.2 Stud UT

.014 .034 22.1 155.6 Stud UT I Avarage

.005

.009

.015

.018

.026

.031 20.5 19.5 20.9 144.4 137.3 147.2 Stud UT UT

.014 .116 20.6 145.1 Stud P j

.046 .145 20.5 144.4 Stud P

.013 .042 21.5 151.4 Stud P I age .024

.057

.101

.085 20.9 21.2 147.0 149.3 Stud R I .047

.038

.034

.065

.060

.076

. 22.7 23.0 23.0 159.9 162.0 162.0 Stud Stud Stud R

R R

.063 .092 22.4 157.7 Stud R l 3 gAverage .048 ,

.076 22.5 158.2 l

I N TVA-v UT-VP-

'h'ennassee Valley Authority, Average f'c 4227 PSI University of Tennessee, Average f'c 3000 PSI Pittsburgh Testing Lab, Average f'c 3775 PSI l

R- Rockport Generating Station, Average f'c 7000 PSI

• .50 Fy = 7.5 KIPS I .81 Fy = 12.1 KIPS I

I ** Block split. Bolts set 7 in. from free edge.

Results, omitted from average.

(1) 125,000 psi minimum specified tensile capacity for A 193 B7 bolting material. Ductility of material fully developed.

i

I 5/8" Maxi-Bolt ;dtic Tension Location I Deflection" 0 .50 Fy* '

Deflection"

@ .81 Fy*

Peak Load (KIPS)

Peak Stress (KSI)

Failure Mode

.010 .075 30.5 135.0 Stud TVA

.010 .035 29.3 130.0 Stud TVA

.010 .025 29.8 131.9 Stud TVA

.020 .025 30.5 135.0 Stud TVA vsrege .013 .040 30.0 133.0 I .010

.011

.011

.019

.025

.022 30.6 31.0 30.3 135.4 137.2 134.1 Stud Stud Stud UT UT UT

.013 .029 135.4 Stud UT I .013

.012

.025

.025 30.6 29.6 30.3 131.0 134.1 Stud Stud UT UT

.012 .024 30.4 134.5 tvorage .213 133.2 Stud P

.074 30.1

.114 .413 29.9 132.3 Stud P I .121 .293 28.9 127.9 Stud P

.019 .157 29.4 130.1 Concrete-(1) P

.015 .213 30.9 136.7 Concrete (1) P v ge .069 .258 29.8 132.0

.046 .073 29.5 130.5 Stud R

.052 .102 31.5 139.4 Stud R I .084

.069

.058

.120

.099

.075 31.2 29.9 31.5 138.1 132.3 139.4' Stud Stud Stud R

R R

verage .062 .094 30.7 135.9 TVA- Tennessee Valley Authority, Average f'c 4227 PSI UT- University of Tennessee, Average f'c 3000 PSI P- Pittsburgh Testing' Lab, Average f'c 3775 PSI R- Rockport Generating Station, Average F'c 7000 PSI I * .50 Fy = 11.9 KIPS

.81 Fy = 19.2 KIPS ur I (1) 125,000 psi minimum specified tensile capacity for A 193 B7 bolting material. Ductility of material i fully developed.

I I

I

I I. 3/4" Maxi-Bolt Static Tension I Deflection"', Deflection" Peak Peak Failure Location O .50 Fy* 0 .81 Fy* Load Stress Mode I .020 .070 (KIPS) 44.0 (KSI) 131.7 Stud TVA

.060 .125 45.3 135.6 Stud TVA I. .050 .090

.150 46.6 139.5 Stud Stud TVA TVA

.040 44.0 131.7 Avarage .043 .109 45.0 134.6

~

.021 .043 46.6 139.5 Stud UT

.015 .043 46.3 138.6 Stud UT I .025

.024

.011

.050

.046

.028 44.5 47.7 46.6 133.2 142.8 139.5 Stud Stud Stud UT UT UT

.020 .042 45.9 137.4 Stud UT IAverage .019 .042 46.3 138.6

.065 .161 47.4 141.9 Stud P

.033 .185 46.6 139.5 Stud P

.039 .153 46.2 138.3 Stud P

.033 .188 46.6 139.5 Stud P

.016 .092 48.6 145.5 Stud P IA age .037 .156 47.1 140.9

, g .070 .113 '

47.3 141.6 Stud R

.168 Stud R lg

.091

.120 .248

.149 48.9 48.6 146.4 145.5 Stud Stud R

R

.073 46.7 139.8

.069 .118 47.3 141.6 Stud R

,IAverage .085 .159 47.8 143.0 TVA- Tennessee Valley. Authority, Average f'c 4227 PSI

! UT- University of Tennessee, Average f'c 3000 PSI P- Pittsburgh Testing Lab, Average f'c 3775 PSI R- Rockport Generating Station, Average f'c 7000 PSI I

• .50IFy = 17.5 KIPS

.81 Fy = 28.4 KIPS I

I l

I I

l l .

r I ,

1-1/4" Maxi-Bolt Static Tension ,

I Tests conducted January 8 and 9, 1981.

Results of Three Static Tension Tests Performed at Singleton Materials Laboratory, Tennessee Valley Authority.

I Anchor: MB-1250 1% inch x 41 inch overall x 16 inch embedment Drillco Maxi-Bolt Three blocks 36 inch x 36 inch x 36 inch, approx.

I Concrete:

compressive strength - 5,000 psi.

After pretensioning anchors to .80 F of Test Procedure:

I stud bolt material, ASTM A 193 GR B7,I the anchors were pulled to failure with ultimate capacity and failure mechanism being recorded.

Test Results:

Test #1: Ultimate capacity - 149,100 lbs.

Failure mechanism - Stud bolt broke.

I Test #2: Ultimate capacity - 135,000 lbs.

Failure mechanism - Concrete block split, stud bolt material in yield.

Test #3: Ultimae.e capacity.- 127,000 lbs.

Failure mechanism - Stud bolt broke.

Results tabulated by Drillco representative present at testing.

Instgilations performed by TVA personnel per Drillco's I Suggested Installation Procedure.

I I

I I

I -

I E-1/2" Maxi-Bolt Static Shear Torque Peak Peak. Total Failurc Ft. Lb. Load (KIPS) Stress (KSI) Deflection" Mode

.350 Stud I (1) 150 150 150 12.8 13.7 15.7 90.1 96.5 110.6

.280

.305 Stud Stud Stud 150 12.6 88.7 .260 I 150 150 150 14.7 14.4 13.0 103.5 101.4 91.5

.357

.220

.251 Stud Stud Stud

.178 Stud I Average 150 150 13.3 13.3 13.7 93.7 93.7 96.6

.168

.263 Stud I (2) 150 18.4 129.6 116.9

.570

.490 Stud Stud 150 16.6 I 150 150 125 16.6 14.4 13.6 116.9 101.4 95.8

.580

.720

.380 Stud Stud Stud 150 18.5 130.3 NR

• Stud 132.4 NR

• Stud i 150 150 18.8 16.0 112.7 NR

• Stud 150 18.4 129.6 NR

• Stud 118.4 .548 IAvorage 16.8 (1) Conducted at University of Tennessee December 15,16,17-1980 f'c between 5700 and 6000 PSI (2) Conducted at University of Tennessee August 4,5,7-1981 f'c between 3000 and 4100 PSI I

• Conducted at University of Tennessee April 7, 1981 f'c = 3786 @ 25 Days. Deflections not recorded.

I i I

I i

i

I I

5/8" Maxi-Bolt Static Shear i

Torque Peak Peak Total Failur.

Ft. lb. Load (KIPS) Stress (KSI) Deflection" Mode

.265 Stud I (1) 175 200 250 18.6 19.2 21.0 82.3 85.0 92.9

.216

.383 Stud Stud 250 18.8 83.2 .267 Stud I 250 250 20.4 19.7 90.3 87.2 89.4

.240

.309

.199 Stud Stud -

Stud 250 20.2 Stud I Average 250 250 20.7 19.1 19.7 91.6 84.5 87.4

.286

.371

.282 Stud I 250 22.8 100.9 .421 Stud (2) .555 Stud 250 23.2 102.7 I 250 275 250 19.2 20.0 20.8 85.0 88.5 92.0

.450

.392

.696 stud Stud Stud 250 20.6 91.2 .507 Stud N 250 19.4 85.8 .360 Stud M .348 Stud 250 20.0 88.5 250 19.4 85.8 .258 Stud 20.6 91.2 .443 IAverage I (1) Conducted at University of Tennessee December 17,18-1980.

,f'c between 5700 and 6000 PSI (21 Conducted at University of Tennessee July 30,31 and August 3,6,7-1981. f'c between 3000 and 4100 PSI I

I I

I /

I I

I I-  ;

I .

3/4" Maxi-Bolt Static Shear .

Torque Peak Peak- Total Failurc Ft. lb. Load (KIPS) Stress (KSI) Deflection" Mode

(1) 350 29.1 87.1 .223 Stud 350 30.0 89.8 .245 Stud 350 30.2 90.4 .246 Stud I 350 1 350 350 31.2 29.3 31.2 93.4 87.7 93.4

.224

.192

.272 Stud Stud -

Stud 30.2 90.3 .234 IAvarage 350 34.8 104.2 .563 Stud I (2) 350 350 350 37.0 31.6 28.8 110.8 94.6 86.2

.570

.390

.539 Stud Stud Stud

.604 I 350 350 350 31.2 30.8 32.0 93.4 92.2 95.8

.536

.680 Stud Stud Stud l 3 350 32.0 95.8 .620 Stud 350 32.4 97.0 .434 Stud E rage 32.3 96.7 .548 l (1)

Conducted at University of Tennessee December 19, 1981 f'c between 5700 and 6000 PSI (2) Conducted at University of Tennessee August 3,4,6,7,-1981 &

f'c between 3000 and 4100 PSI July 31, 1981 I

I lI I

I I

l-______.

I I. LOAD INCREMENTS FOR DYNAMIC TESTS

' --f = 105 ksi--

A. Tensile Tests ,

~

' No. of Maximum Lciading (ki as)

No. Stress Cycles 1/2" Dia. 5/8" Dia. 3/4" Dia.

1 0.50fy 7,000 7.46 11.87 17.54 l 2 0.60fy 2,000 8.95 14.24 21.04 0.70fy 2,000 10.44 16.61 24.55 I 3 4 0.80fy 2,000 11.93 18.98 21,36 28.06 ,

31.56 '

-  :) g 5 0.90fy 2,000 13.42 I 6 1.00fy 2,000 14.91 23.73 35.07 I 8. Shear Tests No. of Maximum Loading (kips)

No.. Stress Cycles 1/2" Dia. 5/8" Dia. 3/4" Dia2 .

! 1 0.35fy, 7,000

• 5.22 8.31 12.27 2 0.42fy 2,000 6.26 9.97 14.73 3 0.49fy 2,000 7.31 11.63 17.18 4 0.56fy 2,000 8.35 13.29 19.64 2,000 9.39 14.95 22.09 5 Q.63fy I 6 7

0.70fy Os77fy 2,000-2,000 10.44 11.48 16.61 18.27, 24.,55 27.00 l 8 9

0.84fy 0.91fy 2,000 2,000 12.50 13.54 19.93 21.59 29.46 31.91 0.98f y 2,000 14.61 23.26 34.37 10 l I' I

I I

'I -

I-TEST RESULTS FOR DYNAMIC TENSION TESTS I --f BETWEEN 3,300 AND 3,800 psi EXCEPT FOR TESTS WITH

• WHICH HAD f BETWEEN 5,500 AND 6,000--

I- '

CONDUCTED AT UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE Peak Load I Test Bolt Dia. Peak Stress No. Cycles No. (In.) (KIPS) (KSI) at Peak Load 1 1/2 14.91 105 2,000 I' 5 6

1/2 1/2 22.2 (1) 21.5 (1) 156 151 0

0 7 1/2 14.91 105 110 1* 1/2 17.0 120 110 2 5/8 23.73 105 1,350 3 5/8 23.73 105 750 5/8 29.4 (2) 130 0 I 4 2* 5/8 23.0 (3) 22.0 (4) 102 97 1,000 1,200 3* 5/8 8 3/4 48.0 (5) 105 0 9 3/4 42.3 (5) 105 0 10 3/4 35.07 105 880 105 1,820 11 3/4 35.07 94 1,480 I 12 4*

3/4 3/4

. 31.56 47.0 (6) 141 0 5* 3/4 38.5 (7) 115 0 I Notes:

(11 .After 2,000 cycles at 14.91 kips, bolt failed under a

' static load of 22.2 kips in Test 5 and 21.5 kips in Test 6.

(21 After 2,000 cycles at 23.73 kips, bolt failed under a static load of 29.4 kips.

(3) Bolt was cycled 7,000 times at 13.0 kips, 2,000 at 18.0, 2,000 at 22.0, and 1,000 at 23.0 kips when failure occurred I- (.4 ) Bolt was cycled 7,000 times at 13.0 kips, 2,000 at 18.0, and 1,200 at 22.0 kips when failure occurred.

(.51 After 2,000 cycles at 35.07 kips, bolt failed under a static load of 48.0 kips in Test 8 and 42.3 kips in Test 9.

(61 Bolt was cycled 7,000 times at 19.3 kips and failed under a static load of 47.0 kips.

(7). Bolt was cycled 7,000 times at 19.3 kips, 2,000'at 26.0, I 1,000 at 32.0, and failed under a static load of 38.5 kips.

I .

9 e.

I I- TEST RESULTS FOR DYNAMIC SHEAR TESTS

--fj Between 3,000 psi AND 3,800 psi--

CONDUCTED AT UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE ,

Test Bolt Dia. Peak Load Peak Stress No. Cycles

! No. (in.) (KIPS) (KSI) at Peak Load 1 1/2 12.50 88.0 1,650 2 1/2 13.54 95.4 1,275 3 1/2 13.54 95.4 900 4 1/2 13.54 95.4 0 1/2 13.54 95.4 0 I 5 6 5/8 18.27 80.8 73.5 600 400 7 5/8 16.61 8 5/8 16.61 73.5 975 9 5/8 19.93 88.2 40 10 5/8 21.59 95.5 20 11 3/4 29.46 88.2 800 12 3/4 27.00 80.8 0 13 3/4 29.46 88.2 0 14 3/4 27.00 80.8 190 I 15 3/4 24.55 73.5 675 I .

I I

I I

I I

I I-1/2" Maxi-Bolt Cracked Beam Dynamic Tests Tests conducted at University Of Tennessee By TVA.

Purpose of Test:

Evaluate expansion anchor performance under maximum I. stress allowables in highly stressed cracked concrete.

Test Beam:

Test beam measured 2 feet wide by 1 foot thick by 17 feet long. The concrete had a 28 day compressive strength 6f 5800 psi. Three No. 6 and three No. 8 bars were placed in each face of the beam. Beam span for test was 12 feet.

Description of Test:

Load was transmilted from a hydraulic jack through a load cell to a pin connected rigid attachment which was fastened I to the test beam with expansion anchors. Loading sequence was controlled by a function generator which can input and readout both load and deflection. Load was measured by a load cell connected to the loading ram and displacement was I measured by an LVDT. A sine-wave function was utilized for input control throughout these tests. The input signal l

controlled beam deflection.

1

! Test Results:

All four anchors were cycled in tension from 3 KIPS to I 1.

29 KIPS (7.25 KIPS per bolt or 49% Fy) for a total of 3,05 cycles. Plate deflection measured .019 inch. At this point flexure cracking in the beam had propagated I to the anchors.

I

2. The beam was cycled in compression from 2 KIPS to 16 I KIPS for 317 cycles. This loading affected the beam only, not the anchors.

3. Because of test apparatus load limits, tension loading I' at more than 29 KIPS was not possible. To attain a higher load per bolt it was necessary to remove the nut and washer from two anchors diagonal to one another.

I The remaining two anchors were then cycled in tension from 2 KIPS to 23 KIPS (11.5 KIPS per bolt or 77% Fy) for 110 cycles. Plate deflection measured .093 inch.

I 4. The beam was cycled in compression from 2 KIPS to 27 KIPS for 91 cycles.

I I

I I 1/2" Maxi-Bolt Cracked Beam Dynamic Tests, continued 5'. Tiie same two bolts were once again cycled in tension from 1 KIP to 24 KIPS (12 KIPS per bolt or 80% Fy) for 298 cycles. Plate deflection measured .164 inch.

. 6. The nut and washers were next removed from the two anchors tested in paragraphs 1., 3. and 5. above, and the nuts and washers were replaced on the other two anchors which had been tested only in paragraph 1.

I above. The nuts on these anchors were not retorqued but were instead run down finger tight on the anchor studs. A compression tension cycle was applied to these anchors from 17 KIPS compression of the beam I through zero to 22 KIPS (11 KIPS per bolt or 74% Fy) tension of the anchors. 105 cycles were run in this fashion. Plate deflection measured .133 inch.

I I

.I l

I I

I l'

l I

I I

lI l

I I .

I ATTACHMENT ASME CODE CASE N-258 I

I I

I I

ATTACHMENT N-258 CASLS OF ASME BOILER AND FRESSURE VESSEL CODE Meesing ofJanuary Ii,1980 I Approved by Council, March 17,1980 Apyroved by AC1, Merch S, I980 This Case shall espire on March ! 7, I983 unless presiously annulled or reaffirmed.

I Case N.254 Design of Interaction Zorms for Concrete Containments, Section lit, Division 2 l

Inguiryr What rutcs apply for the dreign of an .

interaction zone between a steel shell portion of a containment and the Section Ill, Disiaion 2 concrete?

l Replyr It i. the opinion of the Cornmittee that for i Section Ill, Division 2 containments, the interaction sone may be designed using the following rules:

I (1) Interaction zone is that portion of the concrete containment whrte concrete is used in conjunttiun with the steel

• hell for load resisting purpo.es.

I (2) The str.1, hell portion of the interaction more

. hall mrrt the requirements of Section ill, Division ,1, rmirpt tr ting hall be in accordante with CC4000.

I (3) The remtrrte containment in the interaction sone , hall meet the requiremente of Section III, Division 2.

(4) The air i,:n and anal3sis of the intera-tion zone l

. hall be made considering the interaction of the steel

. hell and concrrte. In the interaction analy sis and design,

' anchorage hall be prusided. Between anchor pointa. full bonding and ab rnce of bonding betwren the Division l_

'shril and the llisidun Z concrete shall 1,r considered.'_

[Jugration -hall be.provided_that intermediate bonding _

I {u not a limi!ine cas.r.

See Fig. I ..n the n st page for limitatiim of the intera tion sone.

I I

588.5 sum. 2-eeC

, I

ATTACHMENT (Cont) casa (c.neinu.d) l N-258 CASES OF ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE Steel shell ll Ws g g u.

y- .- -

Supp.assion pool

!,a_ yog g- g l0/ "' ~

• 2' I,M @'.9, o

l -

fJdo

'9.c.co bi

! >eTE 8

.cnoo

'l 1 ,e a e. "J a-9 "o \,

I t. ,

?mce; oco %"o .

o 896$'

won85 %

g j.,* %  % f

~,

"a.j";6Qy},.@% / * ** "*

, *dagooo

• • • • l8 . .

.ggfEjoj$

ob l x$u"$ e N swag,dShi$gk ns h l FIG. I. LIMITATION OF THE INTER ACTION ZONE SUPP. 2-teC l

l

_ - , ._ - . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _